Really, if these guys had a shred of evidence - or dignity - they'd bring their vacuous argument before a judge and let the case be tested. I, personally, would love to see a jury trial - a serious opportunity to put the evidence before a dozen people who would test Hansen's science against Monckton's palaver.

Anyway, it's August and you're cruising the 'net instead of working: cruise on over to IJI and sign up. I'm confident these clowns won't sue, but baiting them is worth the effort.

This has got to be a spoof site, right? If so, hats off, it captures the morally self-righteous zeal of climate alarmists beautifully.

The eco religionists at realclimate can be even funnier than the spoofs on this site though, particularly when actual measurements and real observations are the opposite to their comical late 90’s ‘forecasts’ and models. One of the funniest is James Hansen’s bag carrier, Gavin Schmidt, losing the arguments (and the audience of real people) at the IQ2 debate. (Hence why alarmists won’t debate anymore – they always lose).
Check out Gavin’s take and the comments at realclimate - Oh the humanity!: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/

I think the current line over at realclimate is along the lines of:

‘er, well, erm, we knew all along that it wouldn’t get hotter for another 15 years. It’s a global warming hiatus, you see….. probably. Anyway, act NOW or we’ll all melt!!’

You couldn’t make it up. Er, actually they have made it up….

Well done desmogblog on your satirical alarmist site, had me laughing out aloud. Keep it up and best wishes. TimM

Thanks for your courteous reply. I’m disappointed that desmogblog represents real alarmists and is not spoofed. I guess reality is often crazier than satire. I do, however, respect the sincerity with which you hold your views.

To answer your question, I’ve no plans to contribute to Monckton’s hypothetical legal expenses. I’d consider it if freedom of speech on this issue (particularly for scientists) continued to be curtailed by veiled threats on funding, political pressure and personal attacks.

A point for you to consider: isn’t it Hansen et al (Al?) who threaten to try and convict people with ‘crimes against humanity’ for sincerely disagreeing with their theory or policies? Isn’t it Hansen et al (and some posters here have endorsed this specifically) who refuse to debate? I think Monckton just asked for a debate and has been refused - an acknowledged tactic of the alarmists (-refuse to debate and people will consider the debate over).

I’m afraid that’s not how people are persuaded. I don’t have a moral need to ‘believe’ or be part of either side of the debate - I’m a scientist, and science is not about morals. I simply need to be persuaded by evidence and rational argument of the merits of AGW theory. The alarmist’s tactical refusal to debate and threats of recriminations do not indicate a robust argument. The ‘climate heretics’ or ‘deniers’ as you may refer to them, are trying to win the debate, and successfully persuading more and more people of the weakness of the AGM theory.

Alas, the onus should have been with Hansen et al to prove with evidence his theory, not for others to have to disprove it. Scientifically the wrong way around, but this is politics we are dealing with. We are where we are, and sceptics are (bravely in my view) making, and by and large winning the rational arguments. Nevertheless, politically your side are fully in control, with mainstream media and all political parties supporting your views. That may change, it depends how persuasive the heretical arguments are.

Lord Keynes famously said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”. But if the mantra of your movement’s spiritual leader is that ‘the debate is over’, then no evidence, no measurement, no persuasion or argument can change the ‘facts’ for you. And that is going to be an increasing problem for the credibility of the green movement.

Desmogblog, by publishing my previous post you have shown tolerence of a different view, proving that you are more open to debate than Hansen and Gore, and I thank you for that.

Firstly the shrillness of your post gives the impression that you consider Monckton is Goliath, and that Gore/ Hansen/ IPCC are Davids. Frank, I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the alarmists have the UN, almost all governments and NGO’s, the entire green movement, the BBC and most other mainstream media on their side of the debate. Monckton barely gets a mention on MMM and is unknown to the average chap in the street. Alarmists and their political counterparts have successfully almost silenced all debate on this issue. It’s no good the alarmists trying to appropriate recognised victim status in this debate. The alarmists are the might of the state(s). The heretics are the brave advocates dismantling AGW theories in the unfunded and unreported wilderness outside.

If the defection of scientists from the alarmist side to the rationalist side continues apace, then the alarmists grip on power will shift eventually and we can all rest easy knowing the world won’t fry ‘unless we act NOW!!’(Trademark Hansen 1988-2008).

If not, then ‘green’ mostly progressive policies based on AGW will be enacted which will be either catastrophic, or save the world, depending on your political viewpoint. Time, needless third world suffering and possible economic ruin will tell.

You say:

‘Is it too much to ask Monckton et al. to put their money where their mouths are?

Is it too much for you to ask this of them? When can I see your signature on the petition, Sir?’

A short reply to all three questions: No (because it’s your right to ask), yes (because I don’t agree with the tactic), and never (reason next sentence), respectively. I don’t endorse either side’s threats to sue as a means to win an argument. You must have me confused with someone else.

Frank, unlike the usual anti-human policies of the green movement, here’s a tangible way for you to feel better about yourself, and address global warming: chill. TimM

So now asking Monckton, Coleman, and McShane to put their money where their mouths are is merely a “tactic”? I’d have thought that it’s just the right thing to do.

But that’s understandable. You criticize Gore and Hansen for not taking part in pointless ‘debates’ that’ll end up doing nothing. You, like Monckton, keep repeating your claims of an Alarmist Conspiracy(tm). But of course, you simply can’t risk having your claims of a “conspiracy” tested in a real debate with real consequences before a judge and jury.

“So now asking Monckton, Coleman, and McShane to put their money where their mouths are is merely a “tactic”? I’d have thought that it’s just the right thing to do.”

Not saying that at all, you misunderstood my point. I said resorting to lawsuits rather than healthy discussion was something I disagreed with. You seem a tad swivel eyed about this lawsuit thing, Frank; I suggest addressing Monckton’s and Gore/ Hansen’s arguments is more constructive whichever side of the debate you’re on.

Er, where did I mention any alarmist conspiracy, Frank? Getting me confused with someone else again I think. Oh, and you need to be careful with your capitalisation - makes you look like you’re shouting.

“But of course, you simply can’t risk having your claims of a “conspiracy” tested in a real debate with real consequences before a judge and jury.”

Whatchu on about, Frank? Is this a new tactic of not answering the points your opponent has made, but instead inventing some points you’d prefer to answer and then arguing against those? Confusing the hell out of me!

I’ve got nothing against exposing the arguments forensically, and openly, that’s how science works. That’s how we learn and progress. But are you saying that holding one scientific view or another should be a criminal act depending on who makes the rules? Ever heard of freedom of thought, Frank? Freedom of speech?

I lived in Iran for a while, and the regime there has similar views on who is right and wrong in any particular debate. God is right (i.e. whatever the majlis members say is right, is right) and you and me are wrong, dude. And they have, er, “consequences” for thinking the wrong thing there too.

Get a grip Frank, we’re just people engaged in a robust debate about a subject which we are passionate about. One side will win the argument and the other side will lose. The side with the better arguments will win - and that is our reward. You don’t win an argument by threats of ‘consequences.’ You win it by persuading the other guy you’ve got a better case.

You’ve forgotten how to debate rationally about this, Frank, emotion has taken over. I’m afraid that most of the alarmist’s arguments appear to be emotional these days.

And you still need to chill, it’s not as if the earth is going end(!) TimM

Ah, Timm, you accuse Frank of “not answering the points your opponent has made, but instead inventing some points you’d prefer to answer” and then you suggest that HIS position - as you describe it - is comparable in style and fascistic intent to the Mullahs in Iran. That’s a big rock for a guy in a glass house.

As for the world ending: no, of course you’re right. The world will easily survive the extinction of humans. But some of us think it’s reckless, stupid and selfish to hasten that event.

Chill, yourself. In fact, chillin’ is part of our whole conspiratorial plan.

“you suggest that HIS position - as you describe it - is comparable in style and fascistic intent to the Mullahs in Iran. That’s a big rock for a guy in a glass house.”

Ok. Frank said: “But of course, you simply can’t risk having your claims of a “conspiracy” tested in a real debate with real consequences”

To illustrate what happens when you wish for ‘real consequences’ for your opponent in a debate I said of Iran: “And they have, er, “consequences” for thinking the wrong thing there too.”

Isn’t that a fair point to make?

“As for the world ending: no, of course you’re right. The world will easily survive the extinction of humans. But some of us think it’s reckless, stupid and selfish to hasten that event.”

Richard, global temperature has been falling for years, average ice mass is increasing, the greenhouse signature is missing (despite years of looking for it), and there remains no evidence that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.

You accuse me of being patronising, and fair enough. But why do you and Frank, despite the points in my paragraph above, have an apparent emotional need to believe in Hansen’s theory and ignore the mounting evidence against? Would you be sad if it were disproved to your satisfaction and the world was saved? I’m not sure, Richard.

I want man to be saved. You and your political stablemates want to save the world and feel morally self righteous about it. For some of you the second bit is slightly more important than the first? That’s the difference between us, Richard. And that’s chilling. TimM

Hi VJ
Good to have you with us. I’m assuming from the bedroom angst of your post that you’re still at high school, and that science was never a strong subject for you?

That’s Ok, VJ, I’ll go slowly…

“Why your emotional attachment to denial of AGW”

AGW is a theory, and of course I don’t deny the theory exists - (which is what ‘denial of AGW’ means). That’s the problem when you start using faith-based words like ‘denial’ in a scientific context.

You, Richard and Frank take the view that the evidence is in, and the theory is proven beyond doubt. Others on your side consider even debating the subject is taboo (‘the debate is over!’).

Me (biting my fist) well I’m a scientist you see VJ, and I’m not persuaded by the evidence that Hansen has produced. And more recent evidence has reinforced my view that the theory doesn’t stand up. That’s it - no emotion to be seen here, folks! We disagree, that’s all.

Can I be persuaded that Hansen’s theory is right and I’m wrong? If the evidence fits, then absolutely!

How about you, VJ, can you be persuaded to doubt Hansen’s theory? What evidence would disprove it for you? Nothing, nada, zilch? Well that’s why you’ve got this whole ‘science’ and ‘faith’ confusion going on there, my friend.

Enjoy the school holidays, VJ, and stear clear of the science majors - not your strong point.

If you were really a scientist, you would have been more specific. I have more science degrees than you (BSc Biology), though I do not call myself a scientist.

Your idiotic phrase “faith-based words like ‘denial’ ” suggests that you don’t have an English degree either; nor an education in any academic field. To make an argument in contradiction of evidence is to deny the facts. Denial is not a faith-based word or action; it is a psychological action by someone who will not face reality, who will not or cannot be honest.

Again, you project your own irrational motives onto the people you are arguing with; because you cannot understand people who display academic integrity.

As to fictional claims like falling global temperatures and increasing average ice massing, that’s just bullshit, and if you bothered to read anything published by scientific bodies like the Canadian Ice Service or the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, you’d have to admit that it was so.

“As to fictional claims like falling global temperatures and increasing average ice massing, that’s just bullshit”

The figures since 1998 from the Hadley Centre of Britain’s Meteorological Office (and one of the four bodies measuring world temperature) show the world’s temperature initially flattening, followed by a few years of cooling.

Another of those four bodies, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, (monitors the troposphere), confirms both the halt in warming, and then cooling.

In fact only one of the four bodies, NASA, claims temperatures are still rising. That’s the same NASA Hansen works at. You can draw your own conclusions.

So, a bit strong to dismiss falling temperatures as ‘bullshit’ isn’t it Richard? If you don’t accept the cooling tell me why? Based upon what evidence? Or of course you can just get angry about having to deal with inconvenient evidence.

Your dismissal of sea ice growth is more bizarre. I’m not aware of any non-politicised scientific organisation questioning or spinning the evidence and data on this one. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I genuinely don’t think there’s much argument that sea ice is growing. The reasons are of course more hotly contested. You mention the Canadian Ice Service. Well, in fact Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.
Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with your Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa said this year “Clearly, we’re seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage”. And the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration say that sea ice has grown so fast in the southern hemisphere there is now more ice in the world than is usual!

“bullshit” “you’d have to admit that it was so”

On the contrary, Richard. The evidence is multi-source, complex and clearly often conflicting. I could have it all wrong - I admit that and I’m just weighing the evidence. I’m always open to (evidence based) persuasion. But for you to pretend that there is absolutely no reasonable doubt in AGW theory - that seems to be shiny-eyed belief that surely flies in the face of reason? And it’s why I think that your need to believe trumps your ability to question. A catastrophic mindset when it comes to science. TimM

when you don't bother to check the links that I post. You're supposed to click on those funny blue words and read what's there, and then you'll see that your quote from the Canadian Ice Service guy is hopelessly out of date.

It was primarily your goofy ice claims that I was dismissing as bullshit (that I AM dismissing as bullshit, actually). As for your enthusiasm for a global cooling theory, based on the MET office's provisional global average temperature for this year, well, go to town. If you think that one provisional downtick in that graph means that global warming has ended, well you and Bob Carter and Tim Ball should all go for a beer together. But I recommend against counting on one another for advice in your investment club.

Sometimes, with all the comments back and forth, I miss a few… Like this one.

TimM… I had been prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on Desmog, but now I have to call bullshit, like so many others here. If this is your reading of the science, there isn’t the slightest chance that you actually are a scientist.

I’m not sure how much of your backstory is accurate, but the claim that you are working as a scientist is a complete and utter fabrication. And with that everything you’ve been saying has to be read through that filter.

The figures since 1998 from the Hadley Centre of Britain’s Meteorological Office (and one of the four bodies measuring world temperature) show the world’s temperature initially flattening, followed by a few years of cooling.

Cripes, right from the playbook of the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Accordingly, the Hadley Centre has categorically stated that the eight warmest years on record are: 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007. The same eight years as NASA, just a slightly different order. Richard included the link of what happens when you plot the temperatures.

I can include a comment of the Chief Scientist at Hadley dismissing your incorrect assessment, if you’d like to hear them.

Similarly, claims that arctic sea ice are rebounding are just too silly for words. I could provide a few links, or a dozen links, to the real science being done, but you’ve already shown you don’t read them.

Just so you’ll know, most deniers prefer the argument that since we haven’t been measuring arctic sea ice for very long, we can’t tell what was happening up there a 150 years ago…

“I can include a comment of the Chief Scientist at Hadley dismissing your incorrect assessment”

Please do so.

(shoulders sagging) I’m happy to go toe to toe with you scientifically, chemistry is my bag, as I mentioned before. Shall we go through the homologous series of alcohols? My favourite is ethanol, what’s yours?

Alas, judging by the degree of conjecture, insults, ad hominems, burst blood vessels and full throated eco rage that my job and background seems to elicit on this blog, let’s pretend I’m a lion tamer, or some such. My kids will be overjoyed at my more glamorous occupation!

There are sometimes when I am truly shocked by the sanctimony and condescension of alarmists who think that anyone who disagrees with them must be wrong and therefore a liar.

I don’t remember having the same attitude to you, but if I did I sincerely hope I was funnier.

But keep playing the man and not the ball, SLS - doesn’t really work as a debating tool, but if it keeps you happy I’ll play along like a good boy.

You’ve completely misread me. I have 20 years of martial arts training, and I never lose my control, never strike out in anger.

But you are right… I doubt your scientific credentials based on your reading of the science, so yes, I think you’re playing a game, but I’m not angry with you, I haven’t burst any blood vessels, nor yelled once.

However, you can’t say the same. Can you? Some of your comments have been deleted, haven’t they, for being insulting and condescending? Perhaps you need to get your emotions under control.

But let’s get back to the point.

I’ve noticed in everything you write that you fail to include a single link, just your opinions. So please, find me just one single link where a scientist at Hadley suggests that the world has been cooling since 1997. If you can point to to a page on the Hadley website that supports your claim that temperatures have cooled over the last decade, I will apologize.

SLS, or can I call you Richard? Hey we go back a bit now, can I call you Dicky? (sorry, after the timmy wisecrack I couldn’t resist it!).

I’m in transit and I’m a luddite when it comes to blackberries, so a clumsy response for now.

I accept your challenge, and I’ll post the charts once I get to England next week. Desmogblog and realclimate are very efficient rebuttal operations, however, so I assume if the evidence doesn’t suit you then the source will be attacked, whilst the evidence is ignored. Sorry, call me a cynic and apologies if I’m proved wrong.

You mention that I give opinion. That’s true, it’s, I hope, informed opinion. I make no apology for that. But I’m intrigued. I assume you agree that the IPcc reports are written by policy wonks, supposedly based on scientific opinion? And you’ll be aware that many of the scientific contributors robustly disagree with the report conclusions, primarily because they are political. Are all of the lead scientists who disagree with the IPcc conclusions evil, or idiots? Or in the pay of big oil? Is there really no room for doubt in your mind?

I accept your sincerity, is it it so hard to accept theirs, or mine?

You’ve made some thought provoking posts here, and I thank you for making me think, Richard. I suspect we’d probably agree on much over a beer.

Last point, you’ve got 20 years of marshal arts training. Great. I don’t doubt it, why should I? It tells me a little more about your character, that’s all.

I’ve clearly got a long way to go before I’m afforded the same benefit of the doubt, the same courtesy. But I’ll keep trying!

The much admired AIT has already had a day in court and the court determined that AIT contained nine errors. His Goreness managed to construe the judgement as vindication of AIT … presumably on the grounds that the judge didn’t conclude that the whole thing was a crock.

Besides … its all PR … right?

And we all know that there’s no such thing as bad PR. By that standard, Gore, Hansen et al couldn’t lose.

You might want to go back and read the judgment in that case (or perhaps not, given your apparent enthusiasm to look away from substantive evidence). Stuart Dimmock sued the Secreatary of State for Education asking:

1. That AIT be declared inaccurate and that its broadcast in UK schools be forbidden; or

2. That if it was shown in schools, it should be accompanied by an alternative program for balance. Dimmock suggested the Great Global Warming Swindle.

The judge:

Denied request Number 1, saying that AIT was substantially accurate and based on the best science of our time.

Denied request Number 2, saying (on page 6 of the judgment) that just because some people believe the moon is made of green cheese, that's no reason to present that alternative view to impressionable students.

The ensuing surprise was not that “His Goreness managed to construe the judgment as vindication of AIT” - because, quite clearly, the judgment was a vindication of AIT.

The surprise was that the denier press has been crowing about this case for months - fixating on the judge's treatment of what Dimmock's lawyers had called nine “errors” in the film, without ever mentioning that, well, Dimmock, et al, lost on all counts.

Yes, I signed the petition.
I would really love to see this farce outed in court. It would be entertaining to the max.

I propose India as the host country.
They at least are not blinded by political Lust for all the power and control and Taxes that a good AGW scare promises.
Or maybe England since they are now realizing how badly their green policies have hurt the people there and are now backing away from them.

Please if there is a God then let the games begin. I would love to see this go to trial. At last science will get a fair and level playing field with no spin where Hansen’s words on AGW can not be twisted or dismissed as alarmist paranoia or some attempt to feather his nest.

It is interesting to compare Hansen’s predictions 20 years ago with reality. They are clearly wrong, and thus the underlying theory is wrong (or at least has to be modified).
Has Hansen et al admitted that they were wrong?

We have a very serious problem but people evidently become hysterically blind, willfully deaf and electively mute in the face of it.

Denial of emergent and convergent global threats by informed leaders and delaying tactics by their many minions are threatening life as we know it and the integrity of Earth today.

We are not seeing colleagues speak out loudly, clearly and often to report that The Human Species’ Population Bomb is Exploding NOW, as I did in 2005.

http://www.fragilecologies.com/mar22_05.html

The deafening silence of too many reputable scientists and the shrill voices of many too many political hacks and ideologues are symptomatic of deeply distressing problems. Top rank scientists in many places are either being subjected to venal pressures and, in some cases, driven out of “politically incorrect” areas of research or else their positions and programs are cut out of the government’s budget. Low rank scientists, willing to subscribe to whatsoever is politically convenient and economically expedient, remain in place.

By recklessly funding such entities like the Department of Defense and related `defense’ activities for the sake of winning military battles in distant lands, we are losing “the war” against environmental degradation, biodiversity extirpation, and the preservation of Earth as a fit place for human habitation by our children and coming generations.

How could my single, admittedly not-so-great generation of wrong-headed leading elders have become so terribly misdirected? These self-proclaimed “masters of the universe” have vanquished moral authority, but not the designated enemies. Perhaps wanton greed, acquisition of too much power, and idolatry of endless wealth accumulation and economic growth-mania of many too many leaders have something to do with my `religious’ generation’s adamant pursuit of so many unfortunate errands perpetrated by a confederacy of fools.

Steven Earl SalmonyAWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
established 2001 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php

You say “population decline is the crisis,” but that world population is set to increase by 37 per cent (from 6.7 to 9.2 billion) in the next 40 years. That’s some nasty decline.

Could it be that you are taking things a little out of context? Could it be that the Japanese economy, predicated on the unrestrained use of resources culled from other parts of the world and a steady increase in domestic population is somehow part of the problem? (And not to pick on the Japanese; at a time when we are consuming world resources at five or six times the sustainable planetary rate, all the other Western economy’s are based on the same problematic paradigm.)

And if it’s a crisis that the populations of Japan, Europe and Russia are all “peaking” now, a little ahead of your mid-century schedule, imagine the catastrophe that will occur when ALL the world’s populations stop growing. That’ll be terrible. No?

is the crisis indeed. Japan, Spain, Italy, Russia and many other states, are now facing a near future in which fewer and fewer productive people need to support more and more elderly people, which, especially in societies with very “generous” (aka irresponsible) inter-generational welfare systems, will will be a serious problem. In developing countries the issue is of course not the same, for various reasons, as I am sure you understand.

That the global population will actually peak pretty soon is not a crisis at all, it depends entirely in what type of societies and economies we have at that time. With a more solid economic foundation (on an individual and generational level) the future can be very bright.

As history shows, we are now living in a more prosperous and healthier time than ever. If we can only get away from the scare mongering of the AGW alarmist crowd, and build on past progress instead of breaking it down, we can look forward tp the future with some optimism.

I completely agree, there are too many people and too many being born.
We need more Henry Morgantallers.
I propose that all the alarmists that are on side with this, volunteer to die first.
We can then re-evaluate and see if more are required.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

Every good magician knows that the key to success is misdirecting the audience. You have to draw everyone’s attention away from your ultimate goal in order to perform the trick. Politics is no different, and one of the greatest misdirections in recent memory has been pulled off by the fossil fuel industry.

While most of the environmental movement was (rightfully) focusing attention on stopping the Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline from crossing over one of the most vital aquifers in the U.S., the dirty energy industry was quietly building a network of...